Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-pd9xq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T07:50:41.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professional and Agency Liability for Negligence in Child Protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Donald C. Bross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Suits for negligence in the area of child protection have become frequent as reporting of child abuse and neglect has increased. This article begins with various theories and defenses raised in specific cases, and briefly examines the problem of inadequate legal representation for the child. An additional section notes various policy issues for lawyers and the courts.

Child protection has become a multidisciplinary field, and therefore social workers, doctors, police officers and mental health professionals have been held to be negligent in carrying out duties to children. The diagnostic professions of medicine and mental health are often involved early in child protection proceedings because of legal requirements for diagnosis and reporting. Social workers and police officers have been charged with failure to respond appropriately to reports of child abuse. Cases of inadequate selection of, or monitoring of placements into, foster homes are also associated with social workers. This section will consider these cases, and discuss various defenses raised.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1983 , pp. 71 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

551 P.2d 389 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
Lipari v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 497 F. Supp. 185, 194–95 (D. Neb. 1980).Google Scholar
DeFrancis, V. Lucht, C., Child Abuse Legislation in the 1970s (American Humane Ass'n, Denver) (1974) quoted in Besharov, D.J., What Physicians Should Know About Child Abuse Reporting Laws, in Child Abuse and Neglect: A Medical Reference (Ellerstein, N.S., ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) (1981).Google Scholar
Ark. Stat. Ann. §42-816 (1975); Colo. Rev. Stat. $19-10-104 (4)(b); Iowa Code Ann. §235 A.20 (Supp. 1982); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. $722.633 (Supp. 1982); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law tit. 6, §420 (McKinney 1976). An example of statutory language is the Colorado provision: Any person who willfully violates the provisions of subsection (I) of this section: (a) Commits a class 2 petty offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars; (b) Shall be liable for damages proximately caused thereby. Colo. Rev. Stat. §19-10-104 (4).Google Scholar
Landeros v. Flood, supra note 1, at 392.Google Scholar
551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
403 A.2d 500, 514-15 (N.J. 1979).Google Scholar
141 Cal. Rptr. 92, 95 (Cal. App. 1977).Google Scholar
415 A.2d 625, 630-31 (Md. 1980).Google Scholar
409 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1981).Google Scholar
Id. at 45.Google Scholar
Derrick v. Ontario Community Hospital, 120 Cal. Rptr. 566, 572 (Cal. App. 1975); Jones v. Stanko, 160 N.E. 456, 458 (Ohio 1928).Google Scholar
Skillings v. Allen, 173 N.W. 663, 664 (Minn. 1919); Gill v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 337 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976). See generally Bross, D.C., Legal Aspects of STD Control, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Holmes, K., eds.) (McGraw-Hill, New York) (1978).Google Scholar
A.T.L.A. Reporter 24(2): 76 (1981).Google Scholar
Buege v. Iowa, No. 20521 (July 30, 1980); Fischer v. Iowa Department of Social Services, No. C 1664-280 (February 18, 1980).Google Scholar
Petition at Law, Buege v. Iowa, No. 20521, (July 30, 1980).Google Scholar
City of Jacksonville v. Florida First Nat'l Bank, 339 So.2d 632, 634 (Fla. 1976).Google Scholar
Id. at 636 ( Boyd, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
Martin v. County of Weld, 598 P.2d 532, 535 (Colo. 1978).Google Scholar
No. 80-114 (D) (W.D. Va. March 23, 1981).Google Scholar
649 F.2d 134 (2d Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
Bartels v. County of Westchester, 429 N.Y.S.2d 906, 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980); Koepf v. York, 251 N.W.2d 866, 871 (Neb. 1977); Vonner v. Louisiana, 273 So.2d 252, 255–56 (La. 1973); Elton v. County of Orange, 84 Cal. Rptr. 27, 29 (Cal. App. 1970).Google Scholar
Gill v. Smith, 382 N.Y.S.2d 626, 627–28 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976).Google Scholar
In re Adoption of Doe, 444 P.2d 800, 804 (Wash. 1968).Google Scholar
Child v. Beame, 412 F. Supp. 593, 603-05 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).Google Scholar
438 F. Supp. 1179 (1977), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979).Google Scholar
Griffin v. Pate, 644 P.2d 51 (Colo. 1982).Google Scholar
City of Jacksonville v. Florida First Nat'l Bank, supra note 17, at 633.Google Scholar
Lipari v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra note 2, at 195.Google Scholar
435 U.S. 349 (1978).Google Scholar
See Lawyer's Alert 1:6 (1982).Google Scholar
Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352, 362 (7th Cir. 1974); Morales v. Turman, 383 F. Supp. 53, 126 (E.D. La. 1974).Google Scholar
Gary W. v. Louisiana, 437 F. Supp. 1209 (E.D. La. 1976).Google Scholar
See Steinberger v. Dist. Ct. in and for the Tenth Dist., 596 P.2d 755 (Colo. 1979).Google Scholar
Spearly, J.L., Caseworker Indictments—A Closer Look, National Child Protection Services Newsletter 3(4): 6 (1981) [hereinafter cited as Caseworker Indictments].Google Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-8-405 (1978) states:Google Scholar
[A] public servant commits second degree official misconduct if he knowingly, arbitrarily, and capriciously: (a) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office, or: (b) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.Google Scholar
Second degree official misconduct is a class 1 petty offense.Google Scholar
Steinberger v. Dist. Ct. in and for the Tenth Dist., supra note 34, at 757–58. In the words of the court: Transaction immunity may be simply described as that which precludes prosecution for any transaction or affair about which a witness testifies. Use immunity, by contrast, is a grant with limitations. Rather than barring a subsequent related prosecution, it acts only to suppress, in any such prosecution, the witness' testimony and evidence derived directly or indirectly from that testimony. Id. at 757.Google Scholar
People v. Beruman, 638 P.2d 789, 794 (Colo. 1982).Google Scholar
Casper, M.F. Hutchinson, E.T., CPS Indictments in Kentucky and Their Aftermath, National Child Protection Services Newsletter 4:6 (1981).Google Scholar
El Paso Times, September 12, 1980, at 1.Google Scholar
Caseworker Indictments, supra note 35.Google Scholar
Florida v. Groff, supra note 10.Google Scholar
Denver Post, March 10, 1982, at 1, 11.Google Scholar
382 A.2d 880, 892 (Md. 1978), modified, 396 A.2d 1054 (Md. 1979).Google Scholar
396 A.2d at 1078–79.Google Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. §19-10-113 (3) (1978) provides that in every child abuse and neglect case filed under this section: The court … shall appoint a guardian ad litem at the first appearance of the case in court. The guardian ad litem shall be provided with all reports relevant to the case made to or by any agency or person pursuant to this article and section 19-3-101 (4) and with reports of any examination of the responsible person made pursuant to this section. The court or the social services worker assigned to the case shall advise the guardian ad litem of significant developments in the case, particularly any further abuse or neglect of the child involved. The guardian ad litem shall be charged in general with the representation of the child's interests. To that end he shall make such further investigations as he deems necessary to ascertain the facts, talk with or observe the child involved, interview witnesses and the foster parents of the child, and examine and cross-examine witnesses in both the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings and may introduce and examine his own witnesses, make recommendations to the court concerning the child's welfare, and participate further in the proceedings to the degree necessary to adequately represent the child.Google Scholar
See Fraser, B.G., Independent Representation of the Abused or Neglected Child: The Guardian ad Litem, California Western Law Review 13(1): 16 (1976).Google Scholar
National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection, American Bar Association. 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 331-2250.Google Scholar
Kempe, C.H. Center for Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, National Association of Counsel for Children, 1205 Oneida Street, Denver, CO 80220, (303) 321-3963.Google Scholar
Bross, D.C., Multidisciplinary Teams and Effective Management of Abuse and Neglect, in Protecting Children Through The Legal System (American Bar Ass'n, Washington, D.C.) (1980).Google Scholar
Bross, D.C. Munson, M.M., Alternative Models of Legal Representation for Children, Oklahoma City University Law Review 5(2):561 (1980).Google Scholar